User talk:Ph7five

Re: Geoffrey Nunberg: When creating stubs, please try to include a little bit more context so that the stub can be expanded by someone else. I see you're new, though, so: Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Chick Bowen 00:20, 6 November 2005 (UTC).
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Stubs
Your instincts are quite right, Ph7five, and adding a stub template and category is absolutely the right thing to do. The only thing I would suggest beyond what you're doing is to include a complete sentences or two with some context: the person's name in bold (by writing linguist's name ), profession, maybe where they teach, perhaps a book title or two (as you've done) and preferably why the person or the book matters: "She is influential in the field of cognitive psychophonetics" or whatever. See the section "Ideal stub article" at Stub for more information. Again, your instincts are great. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Chick Bowen 00:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've already gotten Geoffrey Nunberg started in that direction. Chick Bowen 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thomas Cummings (November 11)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cerebellum (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: William Thomas Cummings (December 10)
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit if you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [ . Please remember to link to the submission!
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC William Thomas Cummings was accepted
 William Thomas Cummings, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000(talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=595332696 your edit] to Juggernaut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this way range from H.G. Wells and Longfellow<ref

Disambiguation link notification for February 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juggernaut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bandwagon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear DPL_bot, You sher think like a machine! Maybe the link really would have been okay to the disambig page, where the first link was to wagon and fingered the others as derivative but I fixed it to bandwagon effect, which is okay (Just look at the picture: Can you bots do that yet?) and should satisfy your algorithmic approach. So tnx 4 the headsup... - phi (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laurea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Laurel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit to Kalamazoo
Hi. Your edit their works and I did not revert it, but I'm gonna ask you to please not make changes like that. The old adage, if it's not broken don't fix it? Other than the leading zero you added to the "seconds" figure, your edit changed nothing. 9 seconds is exactly equivalent to 09 seconds; it didn't change the functionality of the template at all. It still points to a random spot in the middle of Bronson Park. I'm really puzzled as to why you felt it necessary? And why didn't you add a leading zero to the latitude and longitude figures? After all, the range of those figures is 0-179. Making changes for the sake of change is highly discouraged and borderline disruptive, as edits don't occur in a vacuum. Ideally, every edit anyone makes will get looked at by another editor. That means that making edits that change nothing wastes other editor's time. No one likes to have their time wasted. Thanks. --John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In reply to the above
Dear John of Idegon,

I'm sorry you suffered puzzlement over why I made the edit. In retrospect I wish I had specified the script error in the edit summary. You could have just messaged me to say you were curious but I'm gonna ask you to please not post things like this on users' talk pages. You are right that it turns people off to have their time wasted. Let me first explain why I made the edit and then why I find your response inappropriate.

Here's the story behind this edit: While doing other work, I quickly turned to look up Kalamazoo and found its article's infobox marred by two big, bold, red, Lua scripting-error messages in my logged-on view of the article page. Clicking on them, I saw that a thorough understanding of the problem would require a lot of time delving into the info on Lua. Because my stack was already littered with brackets -- the task I was interrupting to glance at the Kalamazoo article was the subroutine of another process, itself tangential -- that rabbit hole was not one to go down. I mulled over just letting it slide but then thought "'Be bold!' we say to newbies" and, because I have been here a while, grew mindful of how minor, bot-flagged, syntax errors can often be resolved by a human simply comparing the syntax itself to analogous content.

One of my clicks while mulling and gauging rabbit-hole depth reminded me about the strategy of making one very minor change at a time and checking its effect via preview. I clicked edit on the article and was surprised the information did not appear to have retrieved itself from a repository (because some Wikipedias, Italian for example, take coordinates from Wikidata or, like French, at least have decimal coordinates in the infobox but display them in minutes and seconds of arc on the article page), surprised to see that the offending line in the infobox source had apparently been entered there manually and read: "|coordinates             = 42.29°N, -85.58583°W" and, since I happened to have a couple other towns' articles from the same Wikipedia still open in other browser tabs, which had not given any errors, I clicked edit on one of 'em and read: "| coordinates = 36.16667°N, -86.78333°W" noting that it also appeared to have been entered manually but with leading zeros in the minutes and seconds fields. However, I decided that Nashville (noting spaces in the line) might not be a good benchmark because its syntax differed slightly due to the template option. So I clicked edit in another browser tab for a different town's article and read: "|coordinates             = 44.05194°N, -123.08667°W" whereupon I switched back to the Kalamazoo tab, added a leading zero, and clicked preview. The scripting-error messages went away and Kalamazoo's location and coordinates reappeared in preview. I removed the leading zero I had just added and clicked preview again. The error messages came back in preview. I again put in a single keystroke to make it read "|85|35|09|W," previewed, got a good-looking page, and clicked cancel to ditch the edit. "I cannot believe we're doing this by hand," I thought, "That could lead to all kinds of grief. Best be careful." The article page returned to article view as it had appeared at the outset: no location, no coordinates, big red warning. I did  to refresh the page. No diff. Thinking "Be bold!," I clicked edit again and put the zero back and put that "please check" in the edit summary, saving my edit this time. The page seemed to work fine just like all the other towns I was looking up (although I subsequently noted with distress that not all the towns I went on to look up had leading zeros in the seconds or minutes, as I compared infobox info on several towns, my original subtask). A couple days later, after your post to this page, I note that removing the zero and clicking preview no longer recreates the error. I do not know why the script runs differently (and would be tempted to take the zero back off again were I not already under the shadow of a warning not to make unnecessary changes ;-).

I also agree with you that ideally every edit should be checked by another editor but know that sometimes it's not gonna happen. In this case, my words "please check" were meant to obviate that risk. Furthermore, my use of "try" in the edit summary was intended to convey uncertainty. However, as you point out, my edit certainly appears to have done no harm. Since it also made a perhaps temporary problem appear to go away, from my point of view at the time it was also certainly a useful edit. Your having examined the edit was also not wasted time because it confirms that the edit was not creating some arcane problem that failed to show up in my browser (and I only used the one that day). Insofar as the edit caused the disruption you fear, I suppose that is the price of keeping Wikipedia vibrant, dynamic, and suitable to multiple viewing platforms. Any disruption in this particular case is useful in pointing up the need for improved automation in coordinate-data management. There was talk, I believe, last year, of implementing for English Wikipedia some automated strategy to retrieve coordinate data from a central repository, so that is a change we can hope to see at some point, rather than just linking back to tools.wmflabs.org.

However, I have to tell you I found your response inappropriate. You come across as totally condescending and arrogant. I know you cannot be like that because I see you are a committed Wikipedian, as am I. You're gonna ask me not to behave that way? Your message sounds like Bob Dylan: "Look out kid / It’s somethin’ you did / God knows when / But you’re doin’ it again / You better duck down the alley way / Lookin’ for a new friend." So on one level you are not in line with the fourth pillar because you do not assume good faith. I might just say "get with the program: assuming another's sake is highly discouraged" but you make matters worse by graciously letting me off with a warning this time, making it public, and talking down to me on my talk page. Such authority is not yours to claim. Is your time really worth so much more than mine? Read your words again, please, and tell me honestly how you think they would sound to a newbie.

I am sensitive to this because I spend so much time defending Wikipedia from those who do not want students or employees to read it (even in countries where it is allowed and widely used) because they themselves do not understand it and do not trust it or feel that it does not have enough establishment hierarchy and academic peer review. Such people -- and there are many, even among those who are still students -- invariably point to some example of something they found amiss in our encyclopedia. When I counter by asking if they have ever made a correction to Wikipedia, the vast majority say they would not venture, would not be so bold. However, I also come across a sizable minority who aver they tried once or twice to fix something and describe the experience of getting a message from some hotshot editor saying they did not know what they were doing, that they were disrupting the selfless work of the dedicated few who are here to make sure everyone follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, wasting the time of the arbiters of how to edit Wikipedia. Now, nearly everyone is expert in some aspect of some topic touched upon in the encyclopedia. Indeed, Wikipedia works precisely because our community is able to leverage what is known by such vast numbers of folk. That is what makes us better that the encyclopedic works of yore vetted by the dean's advisory council or the college of deacons or the editorial board appointed by the publisher.

To maintain such a great body of references as the many Wikipedias and Wiktionaries etc., we require a large number of volunteers, even unregistered users on mobile who take the time, their time, to give. Contributing to this store of knowledge has to be a labor of love. Some will pitch in simply out of love for their own field of endeavor. A few will grow to feel a sense of belonging to a vast community at the core of the Wikipedia effort itself. Not all will be able to devote as much time as a few do but, clearly, the output will be a series of love-based encyclopedias and other references. That's right, we are part of a love-based workgroup that freely, openly shares content to produce access to knowledge that will enrich humanity. So where is the love in your above post?

I made a minor edit, so marked, that did no harm, and apparently improved things when it was made. It was certainly not reckless and, like most minor edits, cost more time than it may have been worth. I felt I was doing something worthwhile, however, because in the vast sea of volunteer labor building this great edifice, each selfless grain of sand lends meaning to the project. For that I get a reprimand!?! Did you really think it could do any good? Did you expect me to feel gratitude? Or did you just hope to cow me into fearing your mighty reverts? I'm truly curious how you thought your warning would make me feel. I still cannot see the charity in your response to my edit. Do you really think I don't know that 09 equals nine? Your post, the kind more likely to lead an editor to quit in frustration than seek greater responsibility, left little room for me to feel I'd been addressed in the spirit of solidarity that I would normally expect to feel with a fellow Wikipedian. There has to be room here for the meek who make a limited commitment, minor editors and their minor edits. I sought such spirit as an antidote and strove mightily to feel charity in my heart toward you. After some mighty striving I might conclude that you have offered us all a valuable service by pointing up one thing truly in need of change in Wikipedia: how a few highly active editors and administrators end simply up as bullies. But anyone who loves Wikipedia cannot be all bad so I hope you were just having a bad day or may learn more in the future so as to change.- phi (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Tarana burke on democracy now-20171017.png
Thanks for uploading File:Tarana burke on democracy now-20171017.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text  below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Majora (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! Sorry for writing in English. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

--WMF Surveys (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize again for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone.If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Wikimedia survey (corrected link)
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 26% of Wikimramedia contributors who Wikimedia programs like the Education program, editathons, or image contests. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed.Take the survey now.

If you are not fluent in English, I apologize for posting in English. If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks! —WMF Surveys (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you are not a native speaker of English, I apologize for writing in English. '''If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again.''' We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thank you!! --WMF Surveys (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

In the news
Long time. Your part of the world much in the news! Hope all is well. [Btw. I think User:Ph7five/gda is ready for article-space.] Shyamal (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking in. Yes, there is an emergency in the anthroposphere here and all our activities are moving online. This creates problems in the datasphere, specifically increased latency (so we need more local servers) and unwoke technology choices, most of which are highly toxic (so we urgently need to work on opening up public spaces).  I will try to get to the gda article today and feel reassured that you will be here to help. - phi (talk) 10:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)